Nate Silver on 12/10: 20% chance of a brokered convention

[Landslide Lyndon]

It won't happen exact as a remote chance, because a deal will most probably be cut before the convention if nobody has a majority. Granted it might take two ballots to implement the deal, since delegates might be legally committed to vote a certain way on the first ballot.

Will the establishment swallow their pride and cut a deal to make Cruz the nominee, if that's the only way to defeat Trump?

Assuming they don't think waiting until the convention, and a lot of ballots, will have some chance of ending up with one of the "acceptable" candidates, yes, absolutely. That will not stop some of the drain away of the Pub bourgeoisie, but it will mitigate it. I mean while I can't live with Cruz, Bill Kristol apparently can. We both cannot live with Trump. And if I really had to pick who gets the Pub nomination, I would prefer Cruz, although I will then still be voting for Hillary, just as is the case with Trump.

Bill Kristol was Palin's biggest cheerleader. I would do the exact opposite from whatever he says.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Silver now realizes that if Trump is the nominee, his career as a a political prognosticator is over. He's bet the farm on this. I feel sorry for the man.

I'm disapopointed by Silver's attitude and analysis during the last couple of years.
But if we go by who predicted TRUMP's "imminent demise" and who didn't, then the only pundits left will be Paul Krugman, Michael Tomasky and kos.

[Landslide Lyndon]

But if we go by who predicted TRUMP's "imminent demise" and who didn't, then the only pundits left will be Paul Krugman, Michael Tomasky and kos.

I don't think that's true at all.  The "party decides" fundamentalists like Jonathan Bernstein haven't predicted Trump's imminent demise.  They've just not aimed to predict the short term polling trends at all, because they consider them irrelevant.  Their perspective is that the party elite will get a candidate they like in the end, and who cares who's leading in the polls right now, or tomorrow?  (I think Silver has basically been in this category as well.  Did he ever predict that Trump would have an "imminent demise" in the polls?  I don't think he has, but if someone has a quote from him to that effect, please post it.  I think, like Bernstein, he doesn't get too worked up about who's going to be leading in such-and-such a state next week.)

Now, maybe the "party decides" people are going to be proven wrong in an epic way.  But let's not get ahead of ourselves, and declare them wrong yet.  No one's voted yet.  The GOP doesn't yet have a nominee.  Let's just wait and see whether they're right or wrong.

I'm talking more about the people who stubbornly refused, despite all evidence to the contrary, to take TRUMP seriously as a candidate and confidently predicted his collapse after he disparaged McCain's service, after he insulted Megyn Kelly, after he feuded with FOX News, after the Paris attacks, etc.
To say even now that TRUMP won't be the nominee is a not unreasonable assumption. But to say that he has no chance, there is some serious delusion and stubbornness there.